Introduction
Wilhelm Furtwängler was a renowned German conductor before, during and after the Third Reich. He is still known today not least because of his ambiguous relationship with National Socialism. The playwright Ronald Harwood wrote a play named Taking Sides about Furtwängler’s denazification trial. The title appeals to the audience to take sides rather than summing up the plot of the play. Harwood makes his audience witness a dialogue of two contrasting perspectives: Furtwängler, on the one hand who is convinced of his innocence, and on the other, there is American investigator Major Arnold whose aim is to prove Furtwängler’s guilt. In the end it is up to the audience to take sides (cf. Glaap 2003, p. 13).
Questions the playwright poses at his audience are: “Why did Furtwängler stay in Germany whereas many other artists emigrated? (How) Did he manage to conduct the Berlin Philharmonic without making a deal with high-rank Nazis? Did he make up for his guilt by helping some Jews to escape? Can Arnold be interpreted as advocate of the Third Reich’s victims? (cf. ibid.).
This essay is not meant to finally expose the truth about Furtwängler’s guilt or innocence; other scholars have attempted to do that. Rather, my interest lies in revealing if Harwood succeeded in creating a neutral play that appeals to the audience to take sides without revealing his own personal opinion. With this working hypothesis I want to start by examining Harwood’s motivation to write the play. As a next step the importance of the setting will be examined. When analysing Harwood’s choice of characters and their function concerning their questioning or their support of Furtwängler, I will also examine Furtwängler’s role in the Third Reich as background information. By doing that, arguments taking sides for or against Furtwängler will also be taken into account. Furthermore, I will give an overview of the critic’s voice on Harwood’s play. In my conclusion I want to answer the question if Harwood succeeded in not taking sides.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The meaning of the setting – background information
3. Harwood’s choice of characters
4. Taking sides for and against Furtwängler
5. The function of the play
6. Critics’ reviews of Taking Sides
7. Conclusion
Objectives and Core Topics
This paper examines whether playwright Ronald Harwood achieves neutrality in his play "Taking Sides" concerning the denazification trial of Wilhelm Furtwängler. The primary research goal is to determine if the author successfully presents a dialogue between contrasting perspectives without imposing his own judgment, thereby forcing the audience to take their own position on the conductor's alleged guilt or innocence.
- The moral and artistic dilemma of Wilhelm Furtwängler during the Third Reich.
- Analysis of character functions, specifically Major Arnold as an antagonist.
- The impact of setting and historical context on the denazification process.
- The relationship between art, politics, and personal integrity.
- The effectiveness of Harwood's dramatic approach in maintaining ambiguity.
Excerpt from the Book
Harwood’s choice of characters
To find out whether Harwood achieves neutrality or not it is important to analyse his choice of characters and their function as regards ‘taking sides’.
The main character, who strongly takes sides against Furtwängler, is Major Steve Arnold. He is chosen to pursue Furtwängler’s case because he seems to be neutral, which means that Furtwängler’s ingenious musical talent does not blend him. He describes himself as “totally uncultured” (Harwood 1995, p. 54) and states that he does not “see the great artist […], I see an ordinary guy” (ibid.). Because of his dislike of classical music he is rather taking sides against Furtwängler than being neutral. Already in the beginning of the play he reveals his true intention: “We’re going to nail him“ (ibid, p. 26). Arnold wants to reach this aim by torturing Furtwängler – he keeps him waiting, makes him stand up and sit down again and permanently yells at him (cf. ibid, p. 20). The subtle power struggle between Arnold and Furtwängler is always won by Arnold because he is the one in charge. But Harwood did not create Arnold as a purely bad character. The playwright even states that “Major Arnold is the only one with true human feelings in the play” (Harwood 1999, p. 108). This can be traced back to the fact that Arnold saw Bergen-Belsen two days after its liberation and his memory is still haunted by the smell of burning flesh. Is Arnold therefore the advocate of the victims of National Socialism? No, he is not suitable for that burden because he has no relation to the victims other than the memory of burned flesh and as an outsider he is not in the position of judging the German people either. The fact that his interrogation methods do not fit the good will of his conscience characterises the ambivalence within his character. He disrespects obvious evidence (cf. Harwood 1995, p. 20) and does not acknowledge the principle of ‘benefit of the doubt’. When he learns that there is no real evidence against Furtwängler he still wants to “give him a hard time“ (ibid., p. 63). This leaves the audience with a bitter after taste.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Provides the context of Furtwängler’s ambiguous role in the Third Reich and outlines the paper's hypothesis regarding Harwood's neutral stance.
The meaning of the setting – background information: Explores why Harwood chose the 1946 Berlin setting and how the cultural clash between American ideals and German identity influenced the play.
Harwood’s choice of characters: Analyzes the roles of the play's figures, particularly Major Arnold, and how they contribute to the overarching theme of taking sides.
Taking sides for and against Furtwängler: Discusses the central evidence and arguments presented in the play, focusing on Furtwängler's actions and justifications during the war.
The function of the play: Examines how the dramatic structure influences the audience's perception of Furtwängler's guilt as the trial progresses.
Critics’ reviews of Taking Sides: Reviews how contemporary critics perceived Harwood’s success in creating an open-ended, non-judgmental work.
Conclusion: Synthesizes the analysis, confirming that Harwood successfully leaves the final judgment to the audience by focusing on the ethical dilemmas of the era.
Keywords
Wilhelm Furtwängler, Ronald Harwood, Taking Sides, denazification, Third Reich, Major Arnold, music, politics, morality, ambiguity, guilt, Holocaust, theater, judgment, neutrality.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this research paper?
The paper explores Ronald Harwood’s play "Taking Sides" and investigates whether the author maintains a neutral, objective position regarding the moral accountability of the conductor Wilhelm Furtwängler during the Nazi era.
What are the central themes discussed in the work?
The core themes include the intersection of art and totalitarian politics, the complexity of moral judgment in post-war societies, the ambiguity of personal integrity, and the role of the audience in interpreting historical figures.
What is the primary research question?
The central question is whether Harwood succeeds in writing a neutral play that requires the audience to decide the outcome of Furtwängler’s trial without the playwright revealing his own personal opinion.
Which methodology is used to analyze the play?
The study employs a literary and character analysis, focusing on the motivation behind character creation, the function of the setting, and the weight of arguments presented in the dialogues to assess the dramatic effect.
What is the focus of the main body of the text?
The main body examines the conflicting evidence presented, the psychological makeup of the characters (especially Major Arnold), and how the interplay between these elements prevents a simple verdict of guilt or innocence.
Which keywords best describe this study?
Key terms include Furtwängler, Harwood, denazification, ambiguity, artistic responsibility, and moral dilemma.
How does the setting in 1946 Berlin influence the narrative?
The post-war setting is crucial because it highlights the cultural clash between American bureaucratic efforts at re-education and the German perception of their own cultural heroes.
Why does the author argue that Major Arnold is not a purely villainous character?
The paper notes that while Arnold uses aggressive interrogation methods, his motivation is rooted in his traumatic exposure to the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, making his character complex rather than one-dimensional.
Does the paper conclude that Harwood is biased?
No, the paper concludes that Harwood successfully reaches his aim by avoiding a quick solution and leaving the audience with unresolved moral questions, which encourages deeper reflection.
- Quote paper
- Katrin Schmidt (Author), 2006, Taking sides in Ronald Harwood's "Taking Sides", Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/93533
